I was reading the history of the Malvinas (Falklands) war. From what I read in the book the UK stoled this land back in the 18something's. This land had always belonged to Spain and later to Argentina but was Stolen one day. Argentina Is the one that has developed infrastructure and trade in the Islands and the one that is the rightfull owner in my point of view. Why does the UK still cling to a land with no strategic or commercial value, instead of returning it to the rightfull owners. Even the Pope supported Argentina in the war, visiting Buenos Aires in what was probably one of the hardest moments in Argentine history.

The same is true with the UK's occupation of Gibraltar, it is a worthless rock supported entirely by economic trade with Spain.

I think it is sick that the UK is still clinging to some outdated "British Empire" nonsense and in a time where the UK is a more "Socially Aware" society it could look above natinalistic pride and see the truth on these issues.

The same is true with the UK's occupation of Gibraltar, it is a worthless rock supported entirely by economic trade with Spain.

If you think Gibraltar is just a "worthless rock" you know less about military strategy and geopolitics than you pretend to. Gibraltar represents a critical choke point. He who controls Gibraltar controls who gets into and out of the Mediterranean via the Atlantic. To address your asinine question, the Argentina's "infrastructure" and "trade" was for one purpose - to make the islands a penal colony. Besides, why should land be turned over to the Argentines when the residents of the Falklands wish to maintain their British citizenship? I could understand it if the residents of the Falklands were launching some insurgency to try to join Argentina, but they overwhelmingly have stated their desire to remain part of Britain and, according to Article 73 of the UN Charter, that desire must be respected.

South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.

The history of the Falklands isn't that clear-cut, and like many territories of European powers, the islands were handed back and forth many times. The Wikipedia has a handy open-source and relatively unbiased history:

The Falklands are two main and many smaller islands in the South Atlantic Ocean east of Argentina. Ownership of the group had long been disputed. The Falklands were first discovered probably in the 1520s by the Spanish. The first British claim dates from 1592. In 1690 they were finally named after the Treasurer of the Navy, Viscount Falkland. France established a settlement on East Falkland and claimed the islands 5 April 1764, which the Spanish offered to buy, as they were concerned about disrupting the balance of power in the region. In 1765 the British established a settlement on Saunders Island, and in 1767 France transferred its settlement to Spain. In 1770 the Spanish capture the British settlement, but in 1771 it is handed back. In 1774 and 1806-11 respectively, the British and Spanish leave the islands, each maintaining a claim over them. It is in this general period that the confusion lies.

Argentina gained independence from Spain in 1816 and moved to occupy the Falklands (Islas Malvinas) in 1820, but that settlement did not endure and the Argentinian claim similarly fell into abeyance. Finally, in 1833 the islands were settled by the British. Argentina nevertheless continued to argue that the 'Malvinas' were Argentine territory.

More important than their history is the fact that the islands' inhabitants consider themselves British citizens and have no desire to be annexed by Argentina. Disputed territories like the Falklands, Kashmir, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, even Taiwan, should (and in theory, under the UN charter, do) have the right of self-determination. It would save the world a lot of trouble and suffering if regional powers would let the people be heard and then respect their decision.

The argument that Malvinas people want to remain British is biased: of course they do! they are Brisith people! But this is only because UK has setted its population there.

I give you an example. At the end of the Pacific War (Chile against Peru-Bolivia, 1879), the former Peruvian cities of Arica and Tacna were controlled by Chile. There was an agreement with Peru that stated the following: Chile would manage both cities for 10 years. After that, there would be a poll in both cities and the habitants will decide if they wanted to be Chilean or Peruvian.
What happened? a few years before the poll, Chile moved Chilean citizens to both cities to gain more votes. Peru did the same... then, Peru and Chile realized that poll was biased, since the result would be linked to the capacity of each government to carry more people there. So? a new agreement: the border will pass between Tacna and Arica. This is how Tacna is Peruvian and Arica is Chilean now.

So, to stay that Malvinas should remain Brisith because the habitants want to is biased, since Argentina has no chance to put Argentine people there and let them decide, and UK moved it's people to the south Atlantic for answering that question: we want to remain British.

Argentina has been banned to many things related to the Falklands, actually, Chile has more trade and links with the island than Argentina. Remember LAN is allowed to land there on a weekly base.

Anyway, Luisca, I think your opinion is biased. All stories have 2 versions. "Stolen" is a harsh word and we don't know exactly what happened. Many territiories at the times were abandoned and many borders were moved. It would be like Chile claiming that Argentina stole the Patagonia: it's FALSE, because we abandoned Patagonia and Argentina wisely took advantage of that. It was our fault, if "fault" was the right term for that. Argentina stole nothing. So, wait to hear the other version before state things.

So, to stay that Malvinas should remain Brisith because the habitants want to is biased, since Argentina has no chance to put Argentine people there and let them decide,

Argentina did have a chance. They settled, looked around, saw diddly/squat, and quickly abandoned the Falklands. The English settled on islands already abandoned by Argentina. Several nations made claims on the islands, but ONLY the English are bullheaded enough to stay in such a God-forsaken place, and only the English have actually done something with their claim other than simply planting a flag and leaving.

The only wishes that should be considered in a cases such as the Falklands and Gibraltar are the wishes of the inhabitants. These are cases where no indigenous population was displaced, and so the self-determination of the citizens is paramount.

Gibraltar was handed over to Britain by Spain in 1704, by Treaty agreement. End of story. The treaty still stands, Spain doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Other territories ceded by Spain to Britain in the same treaty (eg. Menorca) have been returned as a result of subsequent treaties, but Gibralter has not. Spain can call it a military occupation if they like, but Gibraltar is a representative democracy, and the recent referendum endorsed the residents' overwhelming wish to remain British. Besides, Spain still holds territory taken from Morocco (Ceuta and Melilla) so are hardly in a position to point fingers.

The Falkland Islanders have also indicated their wish to remain British - there are no Argentines living in the islands, because the original Argentine settlement, and before that the French settlement (for whom incidentally the islands are named in Spanish - the original French settlers came from St Malo, the islands were named after them Les Malouines, which became Las Malvinas in Spanish), were abandoned.

There's one fundamental difference between Gibraltar and the Falklands. The Gibraltarians are not ethnic British people, they are Spanish. However, they have overwhelmingly expressed their desire to remain part of the UK. Perhaps the question should be why it is that these people don't want to be part of Spain? Oh, yes and the Spanish are horribly hypocritical on this question with their North African enclaves in Ceuta and Melilla. At least the British respect the will of the people.

In the case of the Falkland Islands, the ONLY reason they are still British is because the population there wish it to be. Think about it, the islands are 8,000 miles away, require a military garrison to defend them, and don't actually contribute much to the British economy. Do you really think the UK is hanging on to them for the sake of empire?

The UK government was exploring the idea of sovereignty transfer throughout the 1970's. There was hesitancy because of Argentina's lack of democracy at the time, and the concept of a leaseback was mooted. It was Argentina who comprehensively destroyed the idea of any sovereignty transfer through the idiotic invasion in 1982. Naturally, the islanders are now implacably hostile to the idea of Argentine government.

If Argentina really wants the islands back, then they have to demonstrate to the islanders that it is in their interests. Argentina is now a democracy (thanks to the British victory in 1982 ironically), and they need to win hearts and minds. It can be done, but it'll take time. The morning after the Falkland Islanders decide it's in their interests to be part of Argentina, you can rest assured that Britain will be gone.

The debate over the Falklands islands is a non-issue, no Argentines have ever
inhabited the island so the Argentines have no legit claim to it. The Falklanders want to remain 100% British, and as long as they want to remain Brit, the islands are not up for negotiation. Same rules apply for Gibraltar.

There is something called the International Court of Justice.
Any country (who is a signatory) who has territorial claims can bring the case to the Court.
A case was settled recently between Nigeria and Cameroun, whereby borders were adjusted (mostly in favour of Cameroun).

I bet that Spain and Argentina do not even contemplate the prospect of sending lawyers to The Hague...eqd

Will the spanish and portugese speaking peoples leave south america and return the land to the indigenous populations? Will spain and the catholic church return all the gold and other stuff they liberated from the locals? How far back in history do we go? Who should the US of A be returned to? What about Canada? Australia? New Zealand? Should the middle east be redrawn on tribal grounds, not countries invented after WW1? What about Africa?

How about Diego Garcia being handed back instead of being a US aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean?

Incidentally, the falklands have rich fishing grounds that bring in lots of money.

i have also wondered when the u.s.a will return panama the territory it keeps occupied to this day

Zak - don't mean to interrupt your typically anti-US sentiments with actual facts, but the canal, as well as all canal-related lands (yes, this includes the Panama Canal Zone), buildings, and infrastructure were given to Panama on December 31, 1999 under the conditions of the Torrijos-Carter Treaty. You're about 5 years behind the times on this one.

South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.

30 Panamanian high school students died in 1964 by the hands of US troops in protest, this event utlimetly lead to the Torrijos carter treaty. Every year on January 9 we honor the martirs. This was the turning point in the strugle to reclaim the Canal. The initial treaty stated that the US would have it perpetually.

Make some research next time you make such a statement. All lands that the US once occupied were returned on December 31st, 1999. Jimmy Carter and Madeleine Albright came down to the Handover, along with the King of Spain and several other leaders as witnesess.

Incidentally, where I study the (school of aviation of my university) is in the former School of Howard AFB.

Never underestimate the power of a some random rocks in the South Atlantic populated by sheep, penguins and (few) humans to generate crazy rantings.

Luisca, you live in Panama (although you appear to be obsessed with the W/Kerry election as well as opposing gay marriage for some bizarre reason). Why do you give a rat's a&* about the Falklands/Malvinas? These islands could not be further away from your tropical surroundings.

Who cares, other than desperate Argentine and UK (mostly Argentine) politicians wishing to rouse nationalist sentiments among their constituents?

The Falklands War of 1982 was started as a reckless gamble by frantic Argentine generals terrified of losing whatever shred of popular support they had. Argentina was heading for economic calamity resulting from irresponsible governance and was slowly learning of the dreadful crimes committed by the military. The war was a sideshow meant to distract and motivate; unfortunately, the human cost (to both sides) was devastating and completely unecessary.

Argentina does not need another round of blind nationalism. Unfortunately, Argentina's currrent president, Kirchner, appears obsessed with the 'evil IMF' and 'rapacious capitalists' and incapable of truly addressing the problems facing the Republic.

Those islands will become Argentine when its inhabitants will them to be so.

The islands are completely benign to Argentina's strategic interests and, if anything, can present an opportunity to strengthen the Republic's political, commercial and cultural ties with the UK; strong ties both nations enjoyed to great success throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Errr... yeah. Always important to have military resources stationed 13000 miles away on a barren, penguin-infested rock in the opposite hemisphere - you never know where those pesky Russians might land

Back on topic - it is thought that there might be oil reserves in the continental shelf off the Falklands - if significant reserves are found, this could alter the position a bit.

As far as oil reserves are concerned, the UK government forestalled the issue by concluding a revenue sharing deal with the Argentine government some years back. The last thing either side want is an argument over oil rights colouring the picture.